Hand dermatitis from daylight curing "hybrid" gel nail polish

Non-acrylate UV-LED nail gel with high bio-renewable content based on hydrophobic organic-inorganic hybrid system

The widespread utilization of nail gels in the cosmetic and beauty industry, with an anticipated market value of US $65.8 Million by 2026, has raised concerns about health risks associated with conventional compositions containing monomeric acrylate reactive diluents. Technical challenges, such as oxygen inhibition leading to incomplete cure and hence tackiness after curing, further complicate their application process. This study investigates UV-LED nail gels utilizing an innovative organic-inorganic hybrid (OIH) binder system, as the utilization of OIH coatings in nail gels has been scarcely, if at all, reported, with a substantial bio-based content (>50%) without the use of any acrylate oligomer/monomers. By eliminating hazardous monomeric acrylates and addressing challenges related to free radical polymerization, the formulated nail gels achieve a 100% solid composition, free from VOC and HAPs, and possess significant bio-renewable content, ensuring safety, sustainability, and compliance with essential requirements.

Adverse Effects of Do-It-Yourself Nail Cosmetics: A Literature Review

Background

As self-applied manicures have gained popularity, it is important for physicians to remain informed about potential associated side effects. Traditional polish remains most popular among nail enthusiasts, but the pursuit of durability and convenience accelerated development of other nail cosmetic products, including gel polish, acrylic nails, and press-on nails. Despite documented adverse effects among beauty professionals and salon customers, individuals practicing at-home nail care routines may face similar, if not more, frequent complications due to misinformation, inadequate training, and social media trends.

Summary

This review provides an overview of adverse effects associated with different at-home nail cosmetics. Allergic contact dermatitis is the most prevalent adverse event, primarily attributed to (meth)acrylates found in nail glue, gel polish, and acrylic nails. Other adverse effects include infections, chemical burns, and complications from ultraviolet nail lamps.

Key Message

The review highlights the importance of transparent product labeling and appropriate warning labels from manufacturers, as well as physician education and awareness for minimizing risks related to at-home nail cosmetic applications.

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA): A clinical review of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis-Part 1. Introduction, epidemiology, case series and case reports

2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) has been increasingly recognised as a contact allergen and was added to the European baseline series in 2019. In this article (2 parts), the results of an extensive literature review of the clinical aspects of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis to HEMA are presented. In part 1, the epidemiology of HEMA contact allergy is discussed and detailed information on published case series and case reports presented. HEMA is an important cause of contact allergy/allergic contact dermatitis in North America and Europe with recent prevalences of >3% in the USA + Canada and 1.5%-3.7% in Europe. Currently, most cases are caused by nail cosmetics, both in consumers and professional nail stylists. In our literature review, we have found 24 studies presenting case series of patients with allergic contact dermatitis attributed to HEMA and 168 case reports. However, the presence of HEMA in the products causing ACD was established in only a minority. Part 2 will discuss cross- and co-sensitisation, and other skin reactions to HEMA, will assess whether HEMA is the most frequent (meth)acrylate allergen and how sensitive HEMA as a screening agent is, investigate the presence of HEMA in commercial products and provide practical information on patch testing procedures.

Side effects of gel nail polish: A systematic review

Gel nail polish (GNP) has recently gained worldwide popularity. We have conducted a comprehensive summary of the complications of GNP through a literature search using the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify eligible contributions. Complications were divided into mechanical and traumatic nail disorders, allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), and ultraviolet (UV)-induced lesions. A total of 12 contributions were included, identifying 88 patients, all of whom were women. Six of the reports described ACD (62 cases, 70.5%), 3 concerned mechanical nail damage (23 cases, 26.1%), and 3 reported UV-induced skin lesions (3 cases, 3.4%). ACD developed an average of 30 months after GNP initiation. The most frequent culprit allergens were 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate. Pterygium inversum unguis was the most frequent mechanical lesion (n = 17). Squamous cell carcinoma was reported in 3 cases. The delay between UV exposure and the diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma ranged from 11 to 15 years. Scant literature and a lack of education among consumers and beauticians have led to the uncontrolled use of GNP. The principle of managing nail cosmetic problems is prevention through education. There is a need for understanding the processes involved and the associated complications to facilitate appropriate treatment and safe use.

Allergic contact dermatitis caused by 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate and ethyl cyanoacrylate contained in cosmetic glues among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications: a systematic review

Current cosmetic regulations primarily focus on protecting consumers, not the professional user who is subjected to a partly different, and certainly more intense exposure to hazardous substances. Against this background, the present systematic review aims to compile and appraise evidence regarding skin toxicity of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA; CAS no. 212-782-2) and ethyl cyanoacrylate (ECA; CAS no. 7085-85-0) contained in cosmetic glues used among hairdressers and beauticians who perform nail treatments and eyelash extension as well as hair extension applications. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 recommendations for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis. In total, 6 publications from 6 countries were eligible for this systematic review. Meta-analysis revealed that hairdressers and beauticians have a 9-fold increased risk of developing contact allergy to HEMA compared to controls who are not hairdressers and beauticians. Results for ECA are lacking. The present systematic review clearly shows that - regarding contact allergy to acrylates - it is not appropriate to apply risk assessment for consumers to hairdressers and beauticians who occupationally handle cosmetic glues. The regulations in existence do not adequately address occupational risks for hairdressers and beauticians connected with the use of acrylate-containing cosmetic substances and need reconsideration. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Differences between hairdressers and consumers in skin exposure to hair cosmetic products: a review

Hairdressers are at high risk of developing occupational hand eczema. Opinions on the health and safety concerns of non-food consumer products, such as cosmetics and their ingredients, consider the exposure of a 'common consumer', which may not account for occupational exposure of hairdressers. As result, there is a parlous scenario in which serious safety concerns about occupational exposures are present. The purpose of this review is to compare the frequency of exposure to various types of hair cosmetic products among hairdressers and consumers. Database searches for this review yielded a total of 229 articles. 7 publications were ultimately included. The analysis showed that - dependent on the task - hairdressers were exposed 4 to 78 times more than consumers regarding a wide spectrum of hair cosmetic products used in the daily working life ranging from shampoo, conditioner, oxidative and non-oxidative hair colours, and bleaching agents. The highest frequency was found for colouring hair with oxidative hair colour. Consumer usage frequency does not appear to be appropriate for representing hairdresser exposure. The current standards do not effectively address the occupational risks associated with hairdressers' use of cosmetics. The findings of this study should cause current risk assessment procedures to be reconsidered. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.